Table of Contents
Fetching ...

On the existence of critical compatible metrics on contact $3$-manifolds

Yoshihiko Mitsumatsu, Daniel Peralta-Salas, Radu Slobodeanu

TL;DR

The paper resolves the generalized Chern–Hamilton conjecture by classifying when a closed contact 3-manifold admits a critical compatible metric for the Chern–Hamilton energy. The authors derive a dichotomy: such a metric exists precisely when the underlying structure is Sasakian or when the Reeb flow is $C^\infty$-conjugate to an algebraic Anosov flow modeled on $\widetilde{SL}(2,\mathbb{R})$, leading to a complete topological classification of manifolds supporting critical metrics. They connect criticality to calibrated bi-contact structures and Anosov dynamics, proving sufficiency by constructing explicit metrics and proving necessity via a first-integral analysis of $\lambda^2=\text{(eigenvalue-squared of }h)$. Consequently, no contact structure on $\mathbb{T}^3$ admits a critical metric and overtwisted structures are ruled out; all critical metrics are global energy minimizers, with implications tied to Thurston geometries and algebraic Anosov behavior.

Abstract

We disprove the generalized Chern-Hamilton conjecture on the existence of critical compatible metrics on contact $3$-manifolds. More precisely, we show that a contact $3$-manifold $(M,α)$ admits a critical compatible metric for the Chern-Hamilton energy functional if and only if it is Sasakian or its associated Reeb flow is $C^\infty$-conjugate to an algebraic Anosov flow modeled on $\widetilde{SL}(2, \mathbb R)$. In particular, this yields a complete topological classification of compact $3$-manifolds that admit critical compatible metrics. As a corollary we prove that no contact structure on $\mathbb{T}^3$ admits a critical compatible metric and that critical compatible metrics can only occur when the contact structure is tight.

On the existence of critical compatible metrics on contact $3$-manifolds

TL;DR

The paper resolves the generalized Chern–Hamilton conjecture by classifying when a closed contact 3-manifold admits a critical compatible metric for the Chern–Hamilton energy. The authors derive a dichotomy: such a metric exists precisely when the underlying structure is Sasakian or when the Reeb flow is -conjugate to an algebraic Anosov flow modeled on , leading to a complete topological classification of manifolds supporting critical metrics. They connect criticality to calibrated bi-contact structures and Anosov dynamics, proving sufficiency by constructing explicit metrics and proving necessity via a first-integral analysis of . Consequently, no contact structure on admits a critical metric and overtwisted structures are ruled out; all critical metrics are global energy minimizers, with implications tied to Thurston geometries and algebraic Anosov behavior.

Abstract

We disprove the generalized Chern-Hamilton conjecture on the existence of critical compatible metrics on contact -manifolds. More precisely, we show that a contact -manifold admits a critical compatible metric for the Chern-Hamilton energy functional if and only if it is Sasakian or its associated Reeb flow is -conjugate to an algebraic Anosov flow modeled on . In particular, this yields a complete topological classification of compact -manifolds that admit critical compatible metrics. As a corollary we prove that no contact structure on admits a critical compatible metric and that critical compatible metrics can only occur when the contact structure is tight.
Paper Structure (7 sections, 10 theorems, 65 equations)

This paper contains 7 sections, 10 theorems, 65 equations.

Key Result

Theorem 1.3

A closed contact $3$-manifold $(M,\alpha)$ admits a critical compatible metric $g$ if and only if: In the former case $\mathcal{L}_Rg=0$ and in the latter the norm of $\mathcal{L}_R g$ is constant on $M$. Moreover, any critical compatible metric $g$ is a global minimizer of the Chern-Hamilton energy functional.

Theorems & Definitions (25)

  • Definition 1.1
  • Conjecture 1.2: Generalized Chern-Hamilton conjecture
  • Theorem 1.3
  • Remark 1.4
  • Remark 2.1: Fixing $\theta$
  • Lemma 2.2
  • Proposition 2.3
  • Lemma 2.4
  • proof
  • Definition 3.1
  • ...and 15 more